Transcript Non-Cost Share Data Collection Protocol

Providing Farmers Full Credit for Conservation
Practice Application in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed
Project Sponsors:
National Association of Conservation Districts
in cooperation with USDA-NRCS
1
Bay Barometer
Water Quality
Habitats/Lower Food Web
Reducing Pollution
2
2
Presidential Executive Order

May 12, 2009:
President Obama issues
Executive Order 13508
on Chesapeake Bay
Restoration and Protection

Called the Chesapeake
Bay a “national treasure”
and ushered in new era of shared
federal leadership, action and
accountability
3
3
Chesapeake Bay Strategy
USDA 2011 Strategy
Key Goal: implement new conservation practices on 4 million acres of
agricultural lands by 2025.
Key Actions:
• Target CBWI funding to priority
watersheds and priority practices.
• Lead an interdepartmental Environmental
Market Team to develop the standards
and protocols for environmental markets.
• Work to improve the reporting system
for all conservation practices.
• Establish Showcase watersheds to
demonstrate results in limited geographic
areas through increased outreach and technical assistance.
4
4
Presidential Executive Order

Develop a system of
accountability for tracking
and reporting conservation
practices:

By July 2012, mechanisms for
tracking and reporting of
voluntary conservation
practices and other best
management practices
installed on agricultural lands
will be developed and
implemented.
5
3
Conservation Practice Implementation Desired Outcome


To have a full accounting of all conservation practice
implementation on Agricultural Lands in the Chesapeake
Bay States.
Desired Goals:
◦ Develop a sustainable cost effective record system for all
conservation practices in the 6 Bay States.
◦ Reduce differences between state input to EPA.
◦ Reduce Agricultural Land Practice TMDL Implementation
Requirements.
◦ To provide data that will assist in a more accurate estimate
of future conservation needs on Agricultural Lands.
◦ To effectively direct scarce resources to solutions that get
the most cost effective results for water quality while
promoting agricultural production sustainability.
6
Chesapeake Bay Airshed Model
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model
Chesapeake Bay Land Change Model
Chesapeake Bay
Scenario Builder
Chesapeake Bay Water Quality and
Sediment Transport Model
Chesapeake Bay Filter
7
Feeder Model
Chesapeake Bay Partnership Modeling Tools
8
Each segment consists of separately-modeled land
uses:
 Pervious Urban
 Agriculture
Row crops (high till)
 Impervious Urban



Construction
Extractive



Regulated and nonregulated versions of
the above
Combined Sewer
System versions of the
above
Forest/Wooded/Open
Harvested Forest
Row crops (low till)
Vegetable Crops
Pasture
Fertilized Hay
Alfalfa
✴ Nutrient management
versions of the above
Nursery
Degraded Riparian
Pasture
AFO/CAFO
Unfertilized Hay
4
9
Non-Point Source Practices and Programs
Nutrient Management Applications
Atmosphere
Fertilizer
Manure
Runoff
10
28
Non-Point Source Practices and Programs
Practices that Alter Nutrient Applications to Agriculture Land
Uncollected
Pasture
Volatilization
Phytase
Precision Feeding/Forage Management
Manure Transport
Beef
Volatilization
Dairy
Swine
Layers
Collected
Broilers
Turkeys
Enclosure
Daily Application
Horses
Storage
Spring/Fall
Application Crop
Volatilization
Barnyard
Runoff
Daily Application
Runoff
11
Non-Point Source Practices and Programs
Practices With Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Efficiencies
Atmosphere
Fertilizer
Manure
Runoff
12
Non-Point Source Practices and Programs
Practices With Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Efficiencies
Atmosphere
Fertilizer
Manure
Load reductions attributed to
upland benefit employing
“efficiencies”
• Efficiencies can vary by hydrogeomorphic region
Runoff
13
Current Agricultural BMP List in Model
Nutrient Management
• Nutrient Management
• Precision Agriculture
• Enhanced Nutrient Management
Conservation Tillage
• Continuous No-Till
• Conservation Tillage
Cover Crops
• Cover Crops – Late Planting
• Cover Crops – Early Planting
• Small Grain Enhancement – Late Planting
• Small Grain Enhancement – Early Planting
Pasture Grazing BMPs
• Alternative Watering Facilities
• Stream Access Control with Fencing
• Prescribed Grazing
• Precision Intensive Rotational Grazing
• Horse Pasture Management
Other Agricultural BMPS
• Forest Buffers
• Wetland Restoration
• Land Retirement
• Grass Buffers
• Forest Buffers
• Tree Planting
• Carbon Sequestration/Alternative Crops
• Conservation Plans/SCWQP
• Animal Waste Management Systems
• Mortality Composters
• Water Control Structures
• Non-Urban Stream Restoration
• Poultry Phytase
• Poultry Litter Management
• Dairy Precision Feeding and Forage
Management
• Swine Phytase
• Ammonia Emissions Reductions
14
Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model
Urban/Suburban BMPs – Current List
Other Urban/Suburban BMP
• Forest Conservation
• Impervious Surface and Urban Growth Reduction
• Forest Buffers (Urban)
• Tree Planting (Urban)
• Grass Buffers (Urban)
• Stream Restoration (Urban)
• Erosion and Sediment Control
• Nutrient Management (Urban)
• Street Sweeping
• Forest Buffers (Mixed Open)
• Wetland Restoration (Mixed Open)
• Tree Planting (Mixed Open)
• Nutrient Management (Mixed Open)
• Abandoned Mine Reclamation
• Non-Urban Stream Restoration (Mixed Open)
• Dirt and Gravel Road Erosion
and Sediment Control (Mixed Open)
Stormwater Management
• Wet Ponds and Wetlands
• Dry Detention Ponds and
Hydrodynamic Structures
• Dry Extended Detention Ponds
• Urban Infiltration Practices
• Urban Filtering Practices
• Recent/Retrofit Stormwater Management
Septic BMPs
• Septic Connections
• Septic Denitrification
• Septic Pumping
15
Interim Chesapeake Bay Program
Agricultural BMPs – To Add to Model
Nutrient Management
• Irrigation Management
• Passive Hay Management
Manure Management
• Liquid Manure Injection
• Poultry Litter Injection
• Manure Processing Technology
• Poultry Litter Amendments
Nursery Management
• Nursery Runoff Management
Non-Cost Shared Practices
• Tracking and Reporting
Mortality Management
• Mortality Incineration
Soil Amendments
• Phosphorus Absorbing Materials
16
Proposed Chesapeake Bay Program
Agricultural BMPs
Manure Management
•Heavy Use Area Poultry Pads
•Poultry Litter Management
Stormwater Management
•Agricultural Stormwater Management
Sinkhole Management
•Sink-Hole Grass Buffers
17
Development Decisions:
•What to collect
•Where to collect
•Protocol (how) to collect
•Existing System Update or
Design a New System?
•Training on System Selected
•Pilot System
•Reliability/Validity Testing
•Adjust System/Training
•Communication Strategy
•Implementation
•Reliability/Validity Testing
•Future Year Systems?
Success Considerations:
•Cost of system selected
•Technical Assistance
requirements
•People or Technology
Intensive
•Sustainability of System
for Future Year
Collections
•Landowner Acceptance
•State Agency
Acceptance
•EPA Acceptance
•Public Acceptance
•Culture Change
Requirements
18
System
Method
Sample Size
Verification
1. Farm by Farm Inventory
Farm visit by trained personnel
100%
Through on-site visit by trained
personnel while collecting data
2. Farmer Self Certification with Farmer fills out survey and
Onsite visit
trained personnel visit site to
confirm
100% (Return rate by the
farmer affects %)
Through on-site visit by trained
personnel
3. Farmer Self Certifications
100% (Return rate by the
farmer affects % completed in
sample)
By Farmer self certification
when submitted
4. Use of Existing federal, state Trained personnel review
or District records
existing farm data on practice
implementation
<100%(Depends on the
completeness of the records in
the office)
5. Transect of County or
Watersheds
Transect completed by trained
personnel in selected areas of
County or Watershed
Statistically Determined
Trained personnel verify
through knowledge of the farm
or through calls made to the
farmer
Verified by the trained
personnel completing the
transect on the ground
6. Farmer Reported at USDA
office
Farmers go to USDA office and 100% (Rate will be affected by
reports practices (similar to FSA farmers who do not respond)
crop reporting)
Farmer certified during the visit
at USDA office
7. NASS Survey
NASS survey mailed to farm
community.
NASS certification procedures
8. Aerial Photography Remote
Sensing
Remote Sensing determination 100% or other statistically
of practice implementation
selected amount
9. NRI Point or some other
statistically selected sites
Remote Sensing or Field Visit
to the points.
Farmer fills out survey and
mails back
NASS determined %. Return
rate will affect outcome
100% of Points selected
completed
Verification usually involves
determining photographic
signatures by field checks to
determine accuracy of office
determination
Verification can be same as
Aerial Remote Sensing method
or by visit to each site to collect
and certify data
19
What Systems Are States Currently Using for
Data Collection?
•
•
•
•
•
•
Maryland- Conservation Tracker
Virginia-Agricultural BMP Tracking Program
Pennsylvania- Transect Trials- Penn State
Model
West Virginia-Farm by Farm Inventory
New York-Agricultural Environmental
Management Program (AEM)
Delaware-NRCS ToolKit-Special Trials
20





Has completed first once over of state using existing
records, knowledge of farms and recorded information in
Conservation Tracker.
Currently piloting farm by farm evaluation, searching for
non-cost shared practices in Upper Chester watershed.
Developing a data collection/verification sheet and trial
definitions for functionally equivalent practices.
Using computerized nutrient trading tool to evaluate farm
progress toward meeting TMDL goals
Noting functional equivalent practices in pilot.
Willing to share system and training materials with other
states.
21



Using system developed in 2010 called Agricultural BMP Tracking Program
for a computerized farm inventory of conservation practices in the State
cost share and tax credit programs. Contains an accounting system for
tracking dollars committed and spent. Maintained by District field office staff.
Districts develop plans (RMA-Resource Mgt. Area or RPA-Resource
Protection Area) that have different buffer strip requirements, noting what
additional needs to be done to meet state or NRCS Standards and
Specifications.
Completed a report to the Secretary of Natural Resources in November
2010 for “Development of a Strategy to Collect Data Pertaining to the
Voluntary Agriculture and Forestry BMPs”. Three Phase Implementation:
◦ Phase 1-Pilot in 6 Districts to collect and report data. Draft protocols will be
developed for collection, spot checking, data entry and other guidance. Adjust
current Tracker to collect voluntary practice data.
◦ Phase 2- Pending funding, the focus of data collection will be for practices to help
meet the requirements of TMDL.
◦ Phase 3- Explore collection of functionally equivalent practices and getting
approval to enter them into the Bay Model.
22


Three Previous Trials:
◦ Bradford County Farm Visits to 20% of farms. Took one year to
complete. Used some aerial photography and did direct mailing to some
Municipalities (95% response rate).
◦ Lancaster County BMP Transect using CTIC methodology. Looked at
Core 4 practices with 11 technicians. Covered approximately 20% of
farms in county. Direct mailings also.
◦ RC&D Tillage Survey: in 7 counties using CTIC methodology.
Determined residue amounts in the fields at each stop.
Working with Penn State to develop a farmer friendly nutrient evaluation
tool or a one stop conservation plan. Farmer would identify farm and
delineate fields and indicate nutrient application into a nutrient balance
sheet. System calculates if farmer meets the requirements (red or green)
and farmer adjust rates until acceptable. Plan to add a RUSLE soil loss
calculation. If TA dollars are available they would send to Districts to verify
or do farmer self certification.
23
West Virginia

Farm by farm inventory
◦ 100 percent of farms by farm visit

Plans to collect all Non-cost shared, Voluntary Best
Management Practices

Would verify through on-site visit by trained
personnel while collecting data
24
◦ NY State reports BMPs implementation to the EPA through the Upper Susquehanna
Coalition (USC) of 16 Soil and Water Conservation Districts in NY
◦ The process for collecting farmer initiated BMPs starts with the state funded Agricultural
Environmental Management (AEM) program
◦ AEM is the “umbrella program” that provides a consistent format to efficiently identify
environmental concerns and opportunities through a comprehensive on-farm
assessment
◦ AEM is a progressive planning process where district staff use worksheets to take the
farmer through a five-tiered process that includes inventory, assessment, plan
development, implementation and evaluation that documents the farmers
environmental issues and takes into account the farmers resources and timelines
◦ This approach has been in place for over a decade and has strong Ag community
support. Data collection is performed or verified by trained Ag technicians during
individual farm visits
◦ The USC’s goal is to collect data on as many conservation practices as possible
whether the practice was cost-shared or paid exclusively by the farmer
◦ The USC is collecting data on non-cost shared practices even if they fail to meet EPA
or NRCS standards but have functional equivalency
◦ The scope and depth of USC partnerships has created strong
relationships with key agencies to help the USC provide reliable, consistent data with a
network to communicate strategy and outcomes
25


•
Utilizing NRCS Toolkit to collect federal, state and 319 cost-shared
practices. Also have a state voluntary nutrient management
reporting requirement. Tracking manure transport. There are some
NGO practices applied in the state.
Current pilots:
◦ Working with Poultry Companies to compile information on
voluntary and non-cost shared practices using a check sheet by
Flock supervisors.
◦ FSA collected data last fall on cover crops when farmers came in
to report to get a better handle of actual acreage. Asked if it was a
cover crop or commodity crop.
◦ Dept of Ag. State Statistician working on survey of voluntary
installation of non-cost shared irrigation systems being installed
Interested in collecting functionally equivalent practices (primarily
buffers). Have not developed a system to collect voluntary practices.
26
Other Options to Explore:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
FSA Data Collection
NASS Data Collection
Geo Agro Conservation Plug-In
World Resource Institute NutrientNet
NRI Conservation Tillage and Nutrient
Management Survey
USGS Data Sharing Project (NRCS/FSA Data
Transfer)
Conservation Delivery Streamlining Initiative
(NRCS)
27
•
•
•
•
States are unified in their desire to collect data on
as many practices on the ground as possible.
All wish to do a farm by farm inventory by trained
professionals.
All realize this is expensive but gives the best
possible results with strong Ag community support.
Money, people and priorities are major issues.
28


Some states want to collect information on
everything (all non-cost shared, meeting NRCS
standards or Functional Equivalents).
Others want to evaluate the return (in Bay Model
credits) for the investment (personnel and system
costs) before jumping into action.
29


Because there is wide variance in federal and state
cost share programs between states there must be
a method for collecting any and all practices
whether cost shared or not.
Example: Cover Crops are cost shared in one
state, but not other states. Some receive federal
and state funding (double counting issue). Even
federal EQIP practices may not be the same from
state to state.
30






Legal issues surrounding collection of voluntary practices.
FOIA for state collected data.
Permission from landowners to collect information.
Requirement for maintenance of practices.
Creating landowner ineligibility for future cost-sharing.
Data Issues:
◦ Defining “functionally equivalent practices”, determining how to
credit “almost functional equivalent” practices.
◦ Data collection and verification protocol acceptance by CBP
partnership.
◦ Acceptance of practices and assignment of efficiencies by Ag
Working Group and CBP partnership.
◦ Double counting on jointly funded practices.
31

Need a “Plan B” – Back up plan in case Plan A cannot be
implemented.
 For example, if funding is insufficient for on-farm assessments,
what is back-up plan for tracking and verifying non-cost share
practices?
32
EPA Supports this Effort





EPA fully supports crediting verified non-cost share
practices in the CBP Watershed Model.
NACD has been providing EPA with regular updates.
NACD and EPA will be meeting with each state to further
discuss state ideas and approaches.
EPA goal is to have “no surprise” approach so that
everyone knows what data and verification protocols are
necessary for data to be counted.
EPA has created a new grant program “CBRAP” that
provides an additional $11.2 million which can be used to
support these data tracking and verification efforts.
33
Next Steps

Finalize data tracking and verification protocols with
USDA, EPA, NACD and States. Summer 2011.
 Protocols would include “Plan B” (back-up plan) in event that Plan A can’t
be implemented.

Continue Briefings to Chesapeake Bay Program –
Summer/Fall 2011
 Workgroup NACD has briefed Agriculture Workgroup twice and will
continue to provide regular updates.
 Agriculture Workgroup will prioritize developing effectiveness estimates for
any non-cost share practices not meeting NRCS standards.

Test protocols.

E.O. Strategy date for implementing protocols is July
2012.
34




Land adequately and properly treated from a
resource protection perspective.
Land that meets the TMDL goal for each acre,
field, farm in the watershed.
Verify all Conservation Practices, BMP’s on the
ground, managed and maintained properly.
Viable, vibrant and competitive agricultural
production for agricultural producers in the
Chesapeake Bay.
35
Voluntary
installed by
Farmer
USGS: NRCS
and FSA data
NRCS: CDSI, Plug
In, Toolkit,
Protracts
Environmental
Markets:
Registries; World
Resources
Institute; Etc.
States
MD: Cons Tracker
VA: BMP Tracker
PA : Penn State
DE: Toolkit
WV: Farm by Farm
NY: AEM
Fed, State, local
Cost Share
Forest
Service or
State
Forest
Agencies
EPA funded 319
Practices
Easements
Databases:
States, NRCS,
NGO’s;
USFWSPartners for
Wildlife; AFT
36
Bob Ensor, Project Leader,410-4897987, Howard SCD;
[email protected]


Dana York, Green Earth Connection;
410-708-6794, [email protected]
37